Recently, approval has been given to the authority to initiate proceedings against noted novelist Arundhati Roy and some others under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). The action is being taken against her on the basis of a 2010 speech in which she used provocative language.
What is UAPA?
- The Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) was enacted in 1967 to tackle the challenges posed by the secessionist movements and deal with anti-national activities. Till today, the government has made several amendments to the Act. The last amendment was made in 2019, when the government added provisions related to terror funding, cyber-terrorism, individual designation, and confiscation of property.
- The Act has provisions for the death penalty and life imprisonment for involvement in terror activities. It provides power to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to probe cases and prosecute culprits.
- As per the Act, unlawful activities are any action to support or incite cession or secession of any part of the country, terrorism is an act that causes death or injury to any person or damage to any property, or an act that threatens the unity, security or financial stability of India or any other country.
- It empowers the authority to detain suspects without any charge or trial for up to 180 days. The authority can also deny bail to the accused in court.
Why do some favour the Act?
- National Security: The Act empowers the government to take timely actions against the elements threatening national security. As a preventive measure, the government can take action against individuals and organizations.
- Dealing with Terrorism: India has suffered numerous terrorist attacks, resulting in loss of human life, damage to property and fear among citizens. This makes it important for the government to have a strict law to prevent such activities.
- Global Obligations: The Act facilitates India’s commitment to the world to combat terrorism and thwart any plan from its land.
Why some are against the Act?
- Draconian Provisions: The Act encompasses some draconian provisions while giving extreme power to authorities. This can be used inappropriately to silence the voice of dissent.
- Against the Fundamental Rights: The provisions of the Act are suppressing, resulting in violation of fundamental rights including freedom of expression, assembly, and association. It snatches the rights of dissents and protestors who can be targeted by the authorities.
- Violets the Federal Structure: State Governments lose power to maintain law and order situation and investigate crimes. Central Government and NIA encroach upon their powers.
- Lack of Safeguarding Mechanism: There is a lack of provisions to check the misuse of power. It provides the central government with absolute power to take action.
- Low Conviction: The conviction rate is very low. This raises concerns about its effectiveness.
In this scenario, it becomes critical for the government to ensure a balance by mitigating negative impacts while strengthening counter-terrorism measures.
